Author Topic: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment  (Read 17620 times)

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10717
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #200 on: December 20, 2019, 09:54:42 AM »
I don't think the Senate can or should just leave it like this.

As an analogy
if the prosecution in the House does not send articles to the Senate
then why not the Senate simply vote to dismiss?

My personal opinion, and I know some don't agree with me here
but the Senate should brush this off and we move on.

No reason to risk a trial as Trump says.
Yes he loves this yelling and screaming apparently but most Americans don't.

Just get this put in the past.
No matter what the Repubs do the Dems and their friends will blast them.

Like Levin and Rush , I agree. Just dispatch this and run on the accomplishments.

Trump CANT undo what is done.
The Dems will never let him and he can make it worse.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17947
    • View Profile
The Hidden Hand
« Reply #201 on: December 23, 2019, 01:57:01 AM »
http://andmagazine.com/talk/2019/12/11/the-hidden-hand/

The Hidden Hand
by Charles "Sam" Faddis December 11, 2019

The essence of a coup, which some might refer to as covert action, is the hidden hand.  One does not announce that a foreign power is overthrowing the government and installing a new government.  One pulls strings as if from behind a curtain, making events that are all part of a carefully orchestrated plan appear disconnected, spontaneous and serendipitous.

As I read through the recently released IG report for the second time, as someone with a great deal of experience in military and intelligence matters, I see that hand everywhere.

Per the IG report, a single report is delivered to the FBI in the summer of 2016.  It concerns a meeting between a cooperative contact of a foreign intelligence service and a junior level employee of the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos.  The report relates what are frankly very amorphous comments by Papadopoulos concerning the Russian government and its alleged possession of information on Hillary Clinton.

On any other day this report would command no attention whatsoever.  The source in question has no track record of any kind with the FBI. Papadopoulos has been employed by the Trump campaign for perhaps 90 days at this point, and there is no reason to believe he has contacts of significance in the Kremlin.

Not on this occasion.  This one report from a foreign intelligence service goes directly to the top of the FBI.  The Director himself, James Comey is briefed.  A full investigation is launched.  Multiple confidential human sources are tasked.  Wiretaps are ordered.  A task force is organized. Crossfire Hurricane is born.

There is a problem, though.  This hand, perhaps because it is controlled by individuals who have made their bones riding desks in Washington, DC and not in the field running actual operations, is clumsy.  The information regarding Papadopoulos provided the needed pretext to start an investigation, but most of the people who will now form the investigative team are not in on the plot.  They will have to be led to the pre-ordained conclusion, so that it appears that they did so without outside interference.

And these investigators have a pesky habit of actually doing their jobs.

Almost immediately these investigators demonstrate that Papadopoulos does not have the access within the Trump campaign necessary for the suspected Russian connections.  If there is a conduit, Papadopoulos cannot be it.

Suddenly, Carter Page is shoved forward as the new focus of the investigation.  His contacts with Russians are long-standing and well-known.  He will serve well as the new target.  Human sources are mobilized.  Wiretaps are ordered.

But, there is another problem.  Those wielding the clumsy hidden hand have forgotten the first rule of real operational personnel.  Never move against a target until you have run “traces.” until you have run the individual’s name through our databases, checked the records and found out what we already know about him.  Maybe the conspirators really don’t know that.  Maybe they just don’t dare do so, because it will mean involving working-level personnel who are not in on the joke.

In any event, they apparently did not run “traces” and as a consequence they clearly do not know that, yes, Mr. Page has extensive Russian contacts and, yes, he has been reporting to “another government agency” for many years on those contacts.  Page is a source.  Our source.

This is problem.  It is a huge, never fully resolved problem for the conspirators.  The “other government agency” sends a formal memo documenting the fact that Page is a source.  The hidden hand tries hiding that.  Any mention of it is removed from applications for FISA warrants, and it is never mentioned in renewal applications either.

But, again, as new FBI personnel, unwitting of the plot are assigned to the investigation they keep doing their jobs.  Already they have determined that the only evidence they can develop is exculpatory.  Already they have established that there is no basis to believe any of the allegations against Donald Trump and his campaign.  Now, they circle back to the issue of Page.

Are they, in effect, focusing investigative resources on a man, Page, who has been cooperating with American intelligence for years?  If so, this is the definition of “crossing lines.”  Inquiries are made.  A second memorandum is sent by the “other government agency.”  This one spells out in excruciating detail Page’s relationship with that agency.

The conspirators, behind their curtain, are now desperate.  What was supposed to be an elegant plot is now in danger of collapsing.  The hand directs crude measures.  An attorney assigned to the investigation materially alters the memorandum inserting words not found in the original and making it appear to say exactly the opposite of what it said, in plain English, originally.  The trail is covered, temporarily, but there is now hard, physical evidence of the conspirators intervention.  The “other government agency” retains the memorandum in its original form, waiting to be discovered by investigators scrutinizing the record at a later date.

This pattern of often clumsy manipulation of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation is everywhere in the record.  It is at the heart, for instance, of the entire Christopher Steele narrative.

Shortly after Crossfire Hurricane is initiated, Steele, a former British intelligence officer, appears to provide a dossier, actually multiple files, concerning alleged connections between Donald Trump and his campaign and the Kremlin.  The dossier also includes a number of gratuitously salacious allegations concerning President Trump and Russian prostitutes, which likely says more about Steele and the way his mind works than anything else.

Steele is working for a law firm employed by Fusion GPS, which is in effect, an extension of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.  He is in Washington, DC frequently.  He has a wide range of contacts at senior levels on multiple continents.  He has had contact of some kind with the FBI for years.

Yet, when Steele appears to deliver his information he chooses to pass that information to a junior FBI agent working for an FBI Legal Attache (Legatt) in a European city and then rely on this individual to get the “intelligence” to the right people.  Why?  Because in the minds of those individuals masterminding this operation this will make the information more “organic.”  It will not arrive on the desks of the special agents working Crossfire Hurricane as if hand delivered.  It will not appear to be too neatly packaged and perhaps arouse suspicion.  It will seem to the people working the investigation, most of whom of necessity can never know what is really happening, that this information was developed in the field and therefore is more credible and to be afforded more weight.

But, again, the hand is clumsy.  Steele is a loose cannon.  He talks to the press.  He discusses his contact with the FBI.  This is discovered.  Formal contact with Steele is shut down.  He is no longer an FBI source.

As with the alteration of the memo from the “other government agency” the conspirators must become more forceful and more visible.  If Steele’s “intelligence” cannot continue to be fed into the investigation there is no plot.  There is no way to lead the investigators in the desired direction and ensure the desired result.  The entire operation is in danger of collapsing.

Again, per the IG report, Bruce Ohr, a senior Department of Justice lawyer with no role of any kind in the investigation, but a wife who works for Fusion GPS, suddenly appears and makes himself a conduit between Steele and the FBI.  Beyond that, in fact, he meets directly with the head of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, obtains at least one thumb drive full of Steele’s reports and ferries those to the FBI. The pipeline is reestablished.

No one in the Department of Justice or FBI has asked Ohr to play this role.  It is, in fact, in direct conflict with his status as an attorney.  Ohr actively hides his actions from his superiors.  His behavior is transparent and without justification.  It is almost certain to attract attention.  This is not all the way covert action should work, but the conspirators, backed into a corner by the FBI’s refusal to meet Steele directly have no choice.  It is the files compiled by Steele, which are the key to their efforts to delegitimize and destroy Donald Trump.

The IG report on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation runs to hundreds of pages, and it contains a wealth of information.  It is the product of what can only have been a massive amount of investigative work by a team of dedicated professionals and is a huge resource for those attempting to understand the origins of the Russian collusion hoax.  Yet, at the same time it misses the essence of what just transpired.  It is like reading a description of the actions and motivations of a troupe of marionettes in a stage play and missing the fact that they are all simply doing what those pulling the strings make them do.

The FBI did not conduct an investigation of Donald Trump and his associates that ultimately proved to be based on false information and continue that investigation long past the time it should have been shut down simply because some people made some errors in judgment or some procedures need to be changed.  That investigation was simply the most visible piece of a deliberate, covert attempt to overthrow the democratic process.  The perpetrators of that crime have yet to be brought to justice and identified.  Let’s hope that happens soon.

Time for the hidden hand to be revealed.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10717
    • View Profile
historians should stay out of impeachment
« Reply #203 on: December 23, 2019, 05:39:31 AM »
you mean like this guy who is brought onto CNN for the sole purpose of bashing the bad orange man ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Brinkley

OTOH VDH has real merit.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51431
    • View Profile
Dershowitz
« Reply #204 on: December 23, 2019, 06:07:07 AM »
President Trump Is Impeached. Or Is He?
A party-line House vote leaves no principled argument against a party-line acquittal.
By Alan M. Dershowitz
Dec. 22, 2019 3:08 pm ET


Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Capitol Hill, Dec. 19. PHOTO: STEFANI REYNOLDS/ZUMA PRESS
Suddenly, impeachment can wait. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday she’ll delay transmitting the two House-approved articles to the Senate, in an obvious ploy for partisan advantage. For anti-Trump legal scholars Noah Feldman and Laurence Tribe, that has created a Schrödinger’s Cat scenario. They disagree on whether President Trump has been impeached at all.

Mr. Feldman says no: “If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president.” Mr. Tribe says an affirmative vote on an article of impeachment is sufficient to impeach—but he also claims it’s proper to leave it at that. By declining to transmit the articles of impeachment, he argued in an op-ed that Mrs. Pelosi evidently found persuasive, the Democrats would get a win-win. Mr. Trump would carry the stigma of impeachment and be denied the opportunity to erase it via acquittal.

Messrs. Feldman and Tribe are both wrong. Mr. Tribe errs in asserting that the House can deny an impeached official a trial. Mr. Feldman errs in denying that the approval of articles of impeachment is sufficient to constitute an impeachment. The Senate need not wait for the articles to be “transmitted.” The Constitution grants the House the “sole power of impeachment,” and the Senate the “sole power to try all impeachments.” Now that the House’s job is done, it is up to the Senate to schedule a trial and make the rules for it.

My view—which I suspect much of the public shares—is that Mr. Trump was impeached by a partisan vote and deserves to be acquitted by a partisan vote. The representatives who impeached him along party lines after devising partisan rules of inquiry have no principled argument against a party-line acquittal.

Mr. Dershowitz is a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of “Guilt by Accusation: The Challenge of Proving Innocence in the Age of #MeToo.”

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51431
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #205 on: December 23, 2019, 09:46:50 PM »
Source unknown:

"The United States Supreme Court – in a 9-0 holding – unequivocally ruled that no trial is required for the Senate to acquit, or convict, anyone impeached by the House of Representatives. Even liberal Justices Stevens and Souter concurred in the ironclad judgment. The case is Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

Once you comprehend the momentous importance of this case, you will then understand why Harvard Law School professor (and Democrat impeachment witness), Noah Feldman, recently published an article erroneously claiming that President Trump hasn’t been impeached yet.

Feldman isn’t trying to help the President. He knows the Senate can acquit immediately without waiting for Speaker Pelosi to transfer articles of impeachment, or for House impeachment managers to be appointed. This is because the Supreme Court has ruled – in the Nixon case – that how the Senate goes about acquitting or convicting any impeached person is non-justiciable, in that the Senate’s power is plenary and the Supreme Court may not even review it.

This means that if the Senate acquits Trump immediately – without a trial – the Supreme Court has no authority, whatsoever, to review the Senate’s acquittal, and there isn’t a damn thing the House can do about it.
Feldman is distracting the nation from understanding the full scope of Senate acquittal authority. He knows that if the House hasn’t impeached the President, the Senate could not immediately acquit him. This is why Feldman appears to be defending POTUS.

Appearances are deceptive. Feldman’s true game is to provide cover for Pelosi’s power play in not delivering the articles of impeachment or choosing House impeachment managers, neither of which is necessary for the House to impeach. The Constitution doesn’t mention “articles of impeachment” or “impeachment managers.” And once the House impeaches, the Senate takes over. The House then has no power whatsoever to dictate terms of a trial. No trial is even required...

Noah Feldman’s deceptive legal analysis continued:

“Strictly speaking, ‘impeachment’ occurred – and occurs — when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at that point, the Senate is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.”

This is the meat of Feldman’s paper chase fairy-tale, and it’s wrong on both claims. Feldman asserts that in passing H.R. 755, the House only “voted” to impeach, but that the impeachment is not completed until the articles are presented to the Senate. That claim fails upon reading the actual text of H.R. 755, which both impeaches the President and requires that the articles be exhibited to the Senate. If the resolution had only mentioned exhibiting the articles, then Feldman might have a point. But the resolution also clearly states that the President “is impeached.” Full stop.

Second, once impeached, the Senate is certainly not “obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.” Harvard’s esteemed Professor Feldman is certainly aware of the 9-0 Nixon holding. Yet, he fails to mention it at all in his viral article published by Bloomberg. And this is so very telling. He ignores the most important Supreme Court decision in US history regarding impeachment. That’s just lame, bro.

Of course, the House would be well within its sole power to cancel impeachment by voting on a new resolution, but until the House actually takes a subsequent official action, the President remains impeached. So the Senate may acquit immediately.

I find it absolutely frightening that the President’s legal team might be considering Feldman’s position as beneficial to POTUS. It’s even more disturbing that multiple conservative outlets have sadly taken Feldman’s bait. Rather than agreeing with his fairy-tale construction of impeachment authority, the President’s legal team should be pressuring the Senate to rightfully acquit the President immediately, before the House can invent more fake facts from deep state saboteurs that Pierre Dilecto and friends will rely upon in removing the President from office."

===========================================

The referenced case:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-740.ZS.html

=============================================

https://reason.com/2019/12/19/an-impeachment-counterfactual-could-the-senate-hold-a-trial-even-if-the-house-does-not-transmit-the-articles-of-impeachment/
« Last Edit: December 23, 2019, 09:54:46 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10717
    • View Profile
We need another "Constitutional Law Professor's" opinion
« Reply #206 on: December 24, 2019, 05:16:44 AM »
I would really like to hear the official legal analysis of this from the esteemed Constitutional Law Professor from the University of Chicago:

ex president Barack Obama

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12596
    • View Profile
Re: We need another "Constitutional Law Professor's" opinion
« Reply #207 on: December 24, 2019, 05:52:39 AM »
I would really like to hear the official legal analysis of this from the esteemed Constitutional Law Professor from the University of Chicago:

ex president Barack Obama

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/

Among so many other things, I wonder if he taught 'IRS Targeting' as part of his 'Equal Protection under the Law' series.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51431
    • View Profile
Is she right?
« Reply #208 on: December 25, 2019, 07:53:25 PM »


Is she right that 5 Dems on the committee voted for impeachment BEFORE the phone call?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqCzSWpGBRY

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51431
    • View Profile
Ciarmella
« Reply #209 on: December 27, 2019, 12:59:00 PM »


https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ukraine-whistleblowers-attorney-calls-for-sen-blackburns-resignation-from-protection-caucus/

An attorney friend comments:

"Strip out the silly rhetoric from Ciarmella’s lawyer, and ask a few questions.  What can Ciarmella actually testify to as a percipient witness?  Not the call itself, he wasn’t on it, and he doesn’t appear to have had access to the transcript before it was released.  He never spoke with the President, and he was removed from the NSC for leaking long before the call took place.  So, unless he’s got classified information about the Ukrainian reaction or something like that, he’s probably got no information the Dems really want added into the mix.  And, if there’s classified information harmful to the President, you can be pretty sure it’s already been leaked.

"Vindman was the percipient witness, and we already know he didn’t have much to say.

"Here’s what Ciarmella could testify to:  who in the White House or elsewhere communicated with you about the call?  On what date did you speak with someone from the House staff?  Schiff’s staff?  What were you advised to do by the people you met?  Who drafted your “whistleblower” complaint?  Was a draft provided to anyone outside of the IC before you filed it?  To whom?  Did they provide feedback?  What feedback?

"He could also be asked a fun series of questions about why he was booted from the NSC staff for leaking about Trump."

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10717
    • View Profile
JW goes after whistle blower's emails
« Reply #210 on: December 27, 2019, 03:59:31 PM »
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/27/watchdog-sues-feds-over-impeachment-whistleblower-communications-with-spygate-stars/

Go JW ! 

I still like "whistlesucker" better then "hoax blower" though maybe less accurate

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51431
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #211 on: December 27, 2019, 04:57:52 PM »
Love JW!  One of my biggest charity donations!



DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12596
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment, John Bolton
« Reply #213 on: January 07, 2020, 05:05:20 AM »
Hugh Hewitt knows John Bolton well, says that Senate Democrats calling Bolton to testify is like grabbing a knife at the wrong end, a very sharp knife. 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51431
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #214 on: January 07, 2020, 07:53:57 AM »
I'm unclear here. 

What happened to the President's executive privilege not to have his personal advisers subject to Congressional subpoena?

With Bolton's stated willingness to appear, as a political matter that would seem to strengthen the Dems hand in wanting witnesses.   What will weenies like Romney, whatsherface from Alaska, and whatsherface from Maine do?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51431
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12596
    • View Profile
Re: Apparently Willard got some good advice
« Reply #217 on: January 08, 2020, 06:32:48 AM »
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/477147-romney-comfortable-with-clinton-precedent-to-delay-witness-testimony

We are rid of McCain (rest his soul), Flake and Corker.  Let's hope Republicans stick together on this.  If Trump deserves conviction/removal, they should all vote for that.  If he doesn't, they should all vote to exonerate him.  The evidence needs to be clear and convincing.  No more witch hunts, no stepping on rights and Presidential powers, and no making a mockery of the process.  If this is merely a judgment call, that judgment belongs to the voters.

We have seen nothing impeachable so far.  I am shocked at how clean Trump has come out of all these investigations. Comey wiretapping?  Mueller and his team looking under rock?  Remember the raid on Michael Cohen who kept tapes.  Stormy Daniels and now it is Avanati(sp?) on trial. Show us something worse than what LBJ, JFK, Clinton or BO did.

If Romney votes for removal, it will be his own.  Same for Murkowski and Collins.  Centrist Republicans don't keep their seats without Republican support.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/five-times-obama-abused-his-power-and-democrats-didnt-care/
« Last Edit: January 08, 2020, 06:59:06 AM by DougMacG »


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12596
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #219 on: January 10, 2020, 09:09:47 AM »
I kept asking of the House, what is the end game for them?  Exoneration in the Senate?  How does that help them?  Stop short of impeachment?  Too late, but that also would have exonerated him.

The urgency of the House impeachment debate and vote that all happened in one day was that this is a crime in process that must be stopped!

Then the next day, which must have been planned in advance, was the slow walk over to the Senate, withholding impeachment and delaying or preventing the trial, dismissal, acquittal, exoneration. 

In the Senate, Pelosi can't control anything that happens, not even the height of Jerry Nadler's seat.

Senate rules say the process begins when the House delivers its impeachment to the Senate.  A small change in the rules can say the Senate trial begins by reading the House impeachment into their record from the 'Congressional Record'.

Pelosi is feeling the pressure, may hand it over to the Senate today or "soon".  McConnell is telling Republican Senators that the Senate trial begins next week.  They already have agreement on the rules of the trial, same rules that passed 100-0 in the Clinton impeachment trial will pass next week with 51-53 votes.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/09/trump-impeachment-trial-will-start-next-week-mcconnell-tells-republicans/

This was a farce on its face but what Pelosi has done playing games with it has made that much more evident. 

If you are one of the 500,000 liberals out there watching liberal cable news (out of a nation of 330 million) and believed everything they told you about the seriousness and urgency of  this, even you now know this isn't serious and isn't urgent.  It's political, just ask Trump detractor Peggy Noonan.

Can anybody even remember what the crime was?  The talking points changed so quickly from week to week last fall.  Quid pro quo, strike that, bribery, strike that, obstruction of a witch hunt?

Now it all starts up again before they can add more Articles.  The House Democrats will be limited to making the weak case again that they made in December, followed by unlimited time for the accused to answer all the charges.  Then someone calls for a vote and the only real uncertainty is how the red state Democrats like Jones, Alabama, and Manchin, West Virginia will vote.

With Clinton, 100 Senators knew he committed the crime (perjury).  The only issue was each Senator's judgment of whether that rose to the most serious consequence of removing an elected President before the end of his term.

In this case, Chief Justice Roberts is not going to re-write Senate rules; he is going to enforce them.

We already know the prosecution's case; we just have to go through the pain of hearing it again.  The longer they drag it out, the more complex they make it, the more repetitive they get, the more people will tune out - if they hadn't tuned out already.  How does the prosecution take more than one day without witnesses?  Just let them go uninterrupted until they rest.  The next day the defense answers them.  Then Senators submit written questions to both sides which I suppose means an interruption in the trial.  Then they reconvene, presumably read that information into the record and take perhaps a series of votes, none of which Democrats can win.

Even the accusers admit Trump did not commit a crime or anything else listed in the constitution as grounds for impeachment.  Everyone now knows there is no urgency to remove this President, quoting or paraphrasing Pelosi's answer of when, 'whenever I feel like it'.  Everyone knows he won't be removed from office.  And everyone knows that the voters that put him there will decide this all again shortly. 

It's all political, so set up the stage and the seat boosters and let's get on with this.
---------------------------------
Update:  Pelosi will send articles over to  the Senate next week.  Next week?  Why not today? 

Friday is known as a slow news day, not strategic politically for big announcements.  But she already made the announcement.  They need media fanfare, some lipstick on their pig.  Maybe what they need is more cowbell.

Meanwhile Iran shot hundreds of civilians out of the sky.  Is this a bigger story than that?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2020, 10:11:16 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51431
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #220 on: January 10, 2020, 01:15:58 PM »
Worried about Rudy's cronies creating serious problems , , ,

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10717
    • View Profile
do not have votes to dismiss
« Reply #221 on: January 14, 2020, 09:42:07 AM »
https://news.yahoo.com/gop-senators-reject-plans-dismiss-014922251.html

Mitt vying to be VP ( for Joe plugs Biden) will not vote to dismiss - among others including the usual Collins Murkowski
probably Mike Lee and few others.

so this goes on for even longer...........ughhh

I agree with Rush this is a mistake.

Unless they simply remove Trump the Dems will criticize this no matter what so might as well get rid of this ASAP

But of course some Republicans cannot simply say no.........

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12596
    • View Profile
Re: do not have votes to dismiss
« Reply #222 on: January 14, 2020, 10:13:54 AM »
https://news.yahoo.com/gop-senators-reject-plans-dismiss-014922251.html

Mitt vying to be VP ( for Joe plugs Biden) will not vote to dismiss - among others including the usual Collins Murkowski
probably Mike Lee and few others.

so this goes on for even longer...........ughhh

I agree with Rush this is a mistake.

Unless they simply remove Trump the Dems will criticize this no matter what so might as well get rid of this ASAP

But of course some Republicans cannot simply say no.........

They are in uncharted waters.  The Senate Republicans need the public to perceive that they took this constitutional responsibility seriously.  Yes, we already saw the House has nothing, but the House gets to present its entire case to the Senate, hopefully interrupted by objections such as facts not in evidence, hearsay, etc.  Then same for the defense, they get to answer everything accused and introduce their own theory.  There was every rightful reason for the President to want to look into the corruption and use financial leverage to do so.

At that point there will be motions to take votes.  Democrats would like to use the trial for further inquiry.  I have to guess that will be rejected since they passed their impeachment without further inquiry.  But if there is, the Biden family corruption becomes fair game with no time limit on the defense to explore it.  My guess is that Rudy G is ready to go on this, a world class prosecutor in his own right, much more so than the House 'managers'.

Two Democrats lean to the R side with Trump and a number of Republicans are not solidly pro-Trump and have their own divided constituencies to attend to.

I predict an acquittal vote after fully hearing from both sides but don't rule out a scenario where both Trump and Biden end up testifying.

Who will be the first of the Dem candidates to blame Biden for this mess (along with Trump) ?  Biden just took the lead in the first 4 states.  Either attack him or drop out.  Covering for him further is surrender.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51431
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #223 on: January 14, 2020, 10:41:57 AM »
We sure live in interesting times , , ,


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12596
    • View Profile
Hunter Biden can't be questioned because he is my only surviving son
« Reply #224 on: January 15, 2020, 05:05:11 AM »
I'm not a lawyer but I haven't seen this protection in the constitution.

Biden: Trump Has "Savaged My Surviving Son," My Family "Irrelevant" To His Impeachable Offenses
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/01/14/biden_my_family_irrelevant_trump_has_committed_impeachable_offenses.html

The corruption of Americans in Ukraine can't be explored in the investigation of the f President Trump asking Ukraine for help investigating the corruption of Americans in Ukraine - because Joe Biden lost his other son and this is the only one he has left.  Further exposing of Biden family corruption would be unfair to Biden.

Makes perfect sense.  ??
----------------------------------------

A "procedural" vote in the  House today to send the articles of Impeachment to the Senate.  Has anyone ever heard of that?  Last chance to chicken out.  I have been asking from the start, what is the end game for the Democrats, where is the off-ramp?  Here's one.  Vote this down.  End this now.  Otherwise, as Wolf Blitzer asked in a debate question: "...is it going to be harder to run against President Trump if he's been acquitted and able to claim vindication...?"

Umm, yes and your lame answer doesn't  mitigate that.  It's also going to be harder to impeach him again in the next 5 years if they run into some future real or further imagined evidence to do so if they move forward with this hoax.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10717
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #225 on: January 15, 2020, 05:09:18 AM »
"The Senate Republicans need the public to perceive that they took this constitutional responsibility seriously."

By having a trial the Republicans give credence to what the House Dems have done to this point.

It gives legitimacy to the Democrats claim

"that this is not partisan"
"that this is about the defending the Constitution"
"defending "democracy"

Mark Levin had a good talk the very early part of show on this last PM
  I only the first 15 minutes
 
Of note  Trump was for a trial since he likes shows with him at the center of attention but I read recently something I
that sounded like he changed his mind and wanted this dismissed.

In any case,  it is all moot now.
The show will go on and the MSM will give . as little attention to the Rep. and the most attention and emphasis to the Dems.

My guess after the show everyone will still have their same opinions.

OTOH lets hope that the Republicans don't blunder and make everything worse.

Oh and I forget , Lamar Alexander.  Funny , I have not heard much from him since he ran and lost for Presidency.  I keep thinking he retired or died.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10717
    • View Profile
Pelosi pens
« Reply #226 on: January 16, 2020, 07:17:15 AM »
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-impeachment-pens-trump-solemn-somber

can frame and put in living room as conversation piece during home parties with all their lib or never Trumper friends

can use to masterbate with

good for psychiatrists to hang up next to their diploma treating TDS.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12596
    • View Profile
Impeachment, Here we go...
« Reply #227 on: January 16, 2020, 09:27:20 AM »
From what I've read and heard:  The 'trial' starts Tuesday at 1pm Eastern.  'Prosecution' gets 24 hours to present their case.  Defense gets 24 hours.  8 hour days take that to 9pm not counting breaks and interruptions.  Does that mean midnight?  48 hours is 6 full days.  They will work Saturdays and take Sunday off, unable to travel weekends.  If they use all of that time, it takes us through the second week. 

Senators have to just sit there.  They are not allowed electronic devices or reading material that is not part of the case.  (Who enforces that?)  That is torture for anyone, plus it is Schiff and Nadler going on and on about activities of which they are already fully aware.  Senators can submit written questions, that's it.  Those will be read by the Chief Justice Roberts AFTER the first 48 hours, making the proceedings even longer.  Then maybe motions and votes, but that could be when the real trial begins with witnesses and cross examinations.  Could take until summer if no one says STOP!

Does the Senate interrupt for other business?  Does the clock stop for bathroom, lunch and dinner breaks?  National security briefings?  Does the Supreme Court shut down its cases absent one member?  Does the Chief Justice stop to consult with other Supreme Court members (at his discretion) when serious constitutional questions arise, after all, this is a nation-changing, constitutional crisis between the other two branches of government.  Does the House of Representatives conduct any serious business knowing the other chamber is tied up - because of them?  Were they doing anything anyway in divided government?

Meanwhile, the campaign: do the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire town halls go on without 4 candidates participating?  will they re-schedule to date uncertain?  Does Biden at the center of this corruption scandal actually benefit from it?  Does he go ahead with more of his big rallies of 7 or 8 people while the others can go to diners in Iowa at 10pm central via skype?  Who will show up for that? (It's 10 below this morning in Iowa.)  I have been asking, who will be the first contender to rip Biden for his role in this?  From a Dem point of view, his behavior was very Trump-like in this.

Meanwhile, Trump!  His electronic devices will be alive and active while the Senators are silent.  Will he govern responsibly during this time, or step in it and make things worse?  Will the economy keep roaring with two, going on three, new trade agreements coming through, more deregulation and more openings on healthcare.  How about some 'tax reform' on day one of the trial?  Wag THAT dog while the rest have their tails (tales) between their legs.  Ask Larry Kudlow (or Doug) what he alone could do to jump start the economy further this election year, without action from Congress.  The administration is not out of governing and deregulation ideas.

The 'jury' will begin with their own biases and mostly predetermined outcomes, subject to new information.  Republicans 'mavericks' include Susan Collins - Maine, Lisa Murkowski - Alaska, Mitt Romney - Utah.  Who else?  Will VP Pence be needed to step in on critical rules votes?  Red state Democrats are on the hot seat.  Most obvious, Joe Manchin - West Virginia and Doug Jones - Alabama.  What about the others from states that Trump won and from states that Trump might win.  Jon Tester - Montana is not up for reelection, but not immune to political forces.  Michigan has two Dem Senators, one up for reelection. Trump won Michigan. Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania were won by Trump and have one Dem Senator each. Nevada, New Mexico, Minnesota all have two Dem Senators and Colorado has one - in states that could be in play.   How much Derangement do they want to be part of?  The less the better.  What is the 'middle ground' in impeachment, conviction, removal of an elected leader who turned out to not be an agent of Russia?

Famous people NOT reading the forum:  Pelosi had a chance stop this yesterday and end this with impeachment in the House, not with acquittal in the Senate. 
« Last Edit: January 16, 2020, 09:35:45 AM by DougMacG »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10717
    • View Profile
Starr and Dershowitz officially on the Trump team
« Reply #229 on: January 17, 2020, 09:00:55 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10717
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51431
    • View Profile
What did GAO know and when did they know it?
« Reply #231 on: January 18, 2020, 03:45:51 PM »
What Did GAO Staff Know and When Did They Know It?
Judging the organization by its own standards.

By James Freeman
Jan. 17, 2020 4:39 pm ET

Yesterday this column asked why Americans should take the opinion of the Government Accountability Office seriously when it claims a Trump violation of law. Reviewing the same set of facts, House Democrats allege no such violation in their impeachment articles. The details of the GAO’s argument raise more questions—including whether the GAO itself has faithfully followed the law.

Some questions involve the source of this exquisitely timed contribution to the impeachment debate, which was published on the first day of President Trump’s Senate trial. Writing about GAO, Emily Cochrane, Eric Lipton and Chris Cameron assert in the New York Times:

The accountability office is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress.

Given how that sentence ends, it’s not clear why the Times decided to call GAO “independent.”

There’s also a reasonable question about the use of the term “nonpartisan”. A Journal reader raised this issue in a comment posted under Thursday’s column. “The so-called ‘nonpartisan’ GAO’s bureaucrats are represented by the AFL-CIO’s International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers whose PAC in 2016 gave 100% of its donations to Democrats and 0% to Republicans. This creature of Congress is a perfect example of the swamp,” writes Gary Jarmin.

Mr. Jarmin’s report on political donations is correct, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which posts Federal Election Commission data on its OpenSecrets website.

As for Thursday’s news-making memo, GAO acknowledges in a footnote that its opinion was rendered at the request of Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), who repeatedly prodded GAO staff to say whether they agreed with his claim of a Trump legal violation.

But in the body of its opinion, GAO doesn’t say it’s acting to serve one of its legislative bosses but instead claims: “Pursuant to our role under the [Impoundment Control Act], we are issuing this decision.”

The relevant portion of the law is section 686, and this creates a potential problem for the agency as it claims to be doing more than simply Sen. Van Hollen’s bidding.

A former Member of Congress argues via email:

The opinion is not what section 686 requires. This brief statutory section mandates that GAO report on a deferral of budget authority that the president has failed to notify Congress about. The purpose of this mandate on GAO is to let Congress know in a timely way, so that Congress can do something about the withholding of funds (i.e., make sure that they are spent as required by law).

In order for this statutory provision to do any good, GAO needs to let Congress know within weeks, not months or years. Appropriations are annual. The fiscal year ends September 30. The Impoundment Control Act gives Congress 45 days after notification to veto a deferral.

Under section 686 GAO “shall” make a report on the deferral to both Houses of Congress. The GAO report then operates as if it were the required notification from the President. That gives Congress 45 days to act (or, if the notice comes with less than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year, until September 30).

Here, by not acting until the fourth month of the following fiscal year, GAO failed to do what section 686 requires.

Is there an impeachment process for GAO officials?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51431
    • View Profile
WSJ: Trump, Obama, and the Spending Power
« Reply #232 on: January 18, 2020, 03:48:05 PM »
second post

Trump, Obama and the Spending Power
The White House didn’t commit a crime in delaying aid to Ukraine.
By The Editorial Board
Jan. 17, 2020 6:55 pm ET

Opinion: The GAO's Legal Conclusion is Wrong

On Jan. 16, 2020, the Government Accountability Office released a report claiming that President Trump broke the law by delaying military aid to Ukraine last summer. Image: AP/Bloomberg Composite: Brad Howard
Does anyone remember Democrats or Republicans calling for President Obama’s impeachment after a federal court reproached his Administration for lawlessly spending money? We didn’t think so, but now Democrats are flogging a new report by the Government Accountability Office claiming that President Trump broke the law by briefly delaying military aid to Ukraine last summer. The agency’s legal conclusion is wrong, but the double standard is worse.

“This important ruling further strengthens the House’s case for impeachment and removal, and reinforces the need for a fair trial in the Senate that includes documents and witnesses,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared following Thursday’s release of the report. The impeachment press is citing the report as if it were a revelation from the Oracle of Delphi.


The GAO is a nonpartisan agency that works for Congress, and its legal opinions aren’t binding on the executive branch. While the agency usually tries to avoid appearing partisan, its analysis that the Trump Administration violated the law reads like a brief from the Center for American Progress.

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” GAO General Counsel Thomas Armstrong declares, adding that the Administration’s “reluctance to provide a fulsome response” to the GAO has “constitutional significance.”

To rewind the tape, the Office of Management and Budget last summer put a hold on $250 million in Pentagon funds that Congress had appropriated in 2018 for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. Congress made the money available through the end of the fiscal year on September 30, but OMB enjoys discretion over when to let funds flow.

OMB in July and August put a hold on the money putatively “to allow for an interagency process to determine the best use of such funds.” As we know, the President wanted to withhold the aid as leverage on Ukraine. But his advisers and GOP Senators such as Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson and Ohio’s Rob Portman objected, the flap became a national news story, and OMB released the funds on September 12.

GAO now marches onto the political battlefield to shoot the wounded. It claims the White House violated the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which prohibits the President from unilaterally deferring or rescinding money that has been appropriated by Congress. But no spending was deferred. The money was spent in the fiscal year of the Congressional appropriation, and OMB says the Pentagon didn’t intend to obligate most of it until September anyway.

There was thus no derogation of Congress’s power of the purse. By contrast, consider the Obama Administration’s decision to pay subsidies to health insurers in 2014 that weren’t appropriated by Congress. The GOP House sued to vindicate its spending power, and a federal judge ruled against the Obama Administration. But the money couldn’t be clawed back.

In a separate case, GAO concluded the Obama Health and Human Services Department in 2016 illegally paid money to insurers that the Affordable Care Act required to be sent to Treasury. The issue was politically charged at the time, but the GAO opinion made no mention of the Constitution: “We conclude that HHS lacks authority to ignore the statute’s directive.” The Obama Administration said it disagreed, and the press yawned.

GAO has enjoyed respect from both sides of the aisle, but it will undermine its credibility if it joins the anti-Trump resistance.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10717
    • View Profile
Dershowitz is very consistent
« Reply #233 on: January 20, 2020, 04:55:14 AM »
CNN "unearths video " supposedly of Dershowitz contradicting  himself

Yes he noted a crime might not be needed for impeachment but EVERYTHING else he says is 100% consistent with what he is saying now

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alan-dershowitz-impeachment-abuse-of-power-102153297.html
Nice try Reed Richardson

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12596
    • View Profile
Andy McCarthy, The Hole in Impeachment Case: No Impeachable Offense
« Reply #234 on: January 21, 2020, 08:53:37 AM »
It's House Democrats Days in Washington, today and tomorrow at least.  They have the stage and the coverage if they can keep it.  Apparently they dreaded this day because they can't overcome this one reality: Nothing happened that was impeachable.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/trump-impeachment-trial-charges-lack-indictable-offense/

The Hole in the Impeachment Case
By Andrew C. McCarthy
 
January 18, 2020 6:30 AM
 
Something is missing from the charges against Trump: An impeachable offense.

Thought experiment No. 1: Suppose Bob Mueller’s probe actually proves that Donald Trump is under Vladimir Putin’s thumb. Fill in the rest of the blanks with your favorite corruption fantasy: The Kremlin has video of the mogul-turned-president debauching himself in a Moscow hotel; the Kremlin has a bulging file of real-estate transfers through which Trump laundered racketeering proceeds for Putin’s favored mobsters and oligarchs; or Trump is recorded cutting a deal to drop Obama-era sanctions against Putin’s regime if Russian spies hack Democratic accounts.

Thought experiment No. 2: Adam Schiff is not a demagogue. (Remember, this is fantasy.) At the very first televised hearing, when he alleged that President Trump told Ukrainian president Zelensky, “I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent . . . lots of it,” Schiff was not defrauding the public. Instead, impeachment’s Inspector Clouseau can actually prove that Trump was asking a foreign government to manufacture out of whole cloth evidence that Vice President Biden and his son were cashing in on the former’s political influence (as opposed to asking that Ukraine look into an arrangement so objectively sleazy that the Obama administration itself agitated over what to do about it).

What do these two scenarios have in common, besides being fictional? Answer: If either of them were real, we’d already be talking about President Pence’s upcoming State of the Union address.

This is the point that gets lost in all the endless chatter over impeachment strategy and procedure. Everything that is happening owes to the fact that we do not have an offense sufficiently grave for invocation of the Constitution’s nuclear option. If we had one, the machinations and the posturing would be unnecessary — even ridiculous.

Why are we talking about how Chairman Schiff, Speaker Pelosi, and House Democrats rushed through the impeachment inquiry without making a real effort to interview key witnesses?

Why was the Democrats’ impeachment gambit driven by the election calendar rather than the nature of the president’s offense? Why were the timing of hearings and the unreasonable limits imposed on Republicans’ ability to call witnesses dictated by the frantic rush to get done before Christmas recess — to the point that Democrats cynically vacated a subpoena they’d served on a relevant administration witness, fearing a few weeks of court battles that they might lose?

Why did Democrats grope from week to week in a struggle over what to call the misconduct they accused the president of committing – campaign finance, extortion, quid pro quo, bribery? How did they end up with an amorphous “abuse of power” case? How did they conclude that an administration that goes to court rather than instantly surrendering potentially privileged information commits obstruction?

Why such tedious recriminations over adoption of Senate procedures that were approved by a 100–0 vote the last time there was an impeachment trial? Why all the kvetching over whether witnesses will be called when those procedures provide for the calling of witnesses in the likely event that 51 senators — after hearing nearly two weeks of presentation and argument from both sides — want to hear from one or two of them?

Why, with Election Day only ten months away, would Speaker Pelosi stoke an impeachment vote that could be perilous for many of her members, on the insistence that Trump was such a clear and present danger she could brook no delay, but then . . . sit on the impeachment articles for a month, accomplishing nothing in the interim except to undermine the presidential bids of several Senate Democrats, who will be trapped in Washington when they should be out campaigning with Iowa’s caucuses just two weeks away?

None of this would have happened if there had been a truly impeachable offense.

Adam Schiff is a smart guy. He did not idly dream up a “make up dirt” parody. He framed it because he knows that’s the kind of misconduct you would need to prove to warrant impeachment and removal of a president. In fact, Schiff could never prove that, but he figured parody is good enough for 2020 campaign purposes — and that’s what this exercise is all about.

If collusion with Russia had been fact rather than farce, Trump would never have made it to an impeachment trial. He’d have had to resign. Prior to November 8, 2016, Republicans were not the ones in need of convincing that Russia was a dangerous geopolitical threat. If it had been real collusion that brought Democrats around to that conclusion, the votes to impeach and remove would have been overwhelming.

And the timing would have been irrelevant. If Americans had been seized by a truly impeachable offense, it would not matter whether Election Day was two years, two months, or two weeks away. The public and the political class would not tolerate an agent of the Kremlin in the Oval Office.

If there were such egregious misconduct that the public was convinced of the need to remove Trump, such that two-thirds of the Senate would ignore partisan ties and do just that, there would be no partisan stunts. Democratic leaders would have worked cooperatively with their GOP counterparts, as was done in prior impeachments. They would have told the president: “Sure, you can have your lawyers here, and call whatever witnesses you want.” There would be a bipartisan sense that the president had done profound wrong. There would be a sense of history, not contest. Congressional leaders would want to be remembered as statesmen, not apparatchiks.

If there were a real impeachable offense, there would be no fretting about witnesses at the trial. Senate leaders would be contemplating that, after hearing the case extensively presented by both sides, there might well be enough votes to convict without witnesses. But if there were an appetite for witnesses, witnesses would be called . . . as they were in Watergate. And just as in Watergate, if the president withheld vital evidence of appalling lawlessness, the public would not be broadly indifferent to administration stonewalling.

If there were an obviously impeachable offense, the garrisons of Fort Knox could not have stopped Nancy Pelosi from personally marching impeachment articles into the Senate the second the House had adopted them — in what would have been an overwhelming bipartisan vote (of the kind that Pelosi, not long ago, said would be imperative for a legitimate impeachment effort).

The Framers expected presidents to abuse their powers from time to time. And not just presidents. Our Constitution’s theory of the human condition, and thus of governance, is that power is apt to corrupt anyone. It needs to be divided, and the peer components need to be incentivized to check each other. The operating assumption is that, otherwise, one component would accumulate too much power and inevitably fall prey to the tyrannical temptation. But as Madison observed, men are not angels. Separation of powers arms us against inevitable abuse, it does not prevent abuse from happening. Abuse is a given: Congress uses lawmaking power to encroach on the other branches’ prerogatives; judges legislate from the bench, presidents leverage their awesome powers for political advantage. The expectation is not that government officials will never overreach; it is that when one branch does overreach, the others will bring it into line.

That is the norm: corrective action or inaction, political pressure, naming and shaming, power of the purse, and so on. We expect to criticize, inveigh, even censure. We don’t leap from abuse to expulsion. We don’t expect routinely to expel members of Congress or impeach presidents and judges. That is reserved for historically extraordinary wrongs.

On Ukraine, nothing of consequence came of President Trump’s bull-in-a-china-shop excesses. Sure, they ought to be a 2020 campaign issue. Democrats, instead, would have us exaggerate them into historically extraordinary wrongs. For that, you need gamesmanship. If there were real impeachable misconduct, there would be no time or place for games.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2020, 08:59:57 AM by DougMacG »


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17947
    • View Profile


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12596
    • View Profile
Coup, Impeachment: "baseless", "discredited", "debunked" "conspiracy"
« Reply #238 on: January 22, 2020, 05:34:32 AM »
More than a hundred usages of these inflammatory terms in the House report.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/01/21/analysis_dems_repetitive_impeach_lingo_suggests_no_slam_debunk_122083.html

the report accuses the president of pushing a “discredited conspiracy theory alleging Ukrainian interference in the 2016 United States Presidential election.”

the report says that Giuliani was hoping to chase down not just claims about the Bidens but “discredited claims about the Bidens.”
--------------------------------------------------
Someone once said its not true therefore its forever "debunked", no matter where the facts may fall?  Doesn't that make both Nadler and Schiff debunked?  Can't we just argue on the merits?


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10717
    • View Profile
debunked my derriere
« Reply #239 on: January 22, 2020, 06:24:54 AM »
Yes I hate the most popular leftist media use of the word "debunked"

the only thing "debunked" is CNNs credibility


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10717
    • View Profile
Larry of the Democrat Party Tribe
« Reply #240 on: January 22, 2020, 07:28:47 AM »
I would like to add Leftist Larry from the Democrat Party Tribe

his credibility is debunked

he is out and out typical Jewish lib who is in love with his Democrat Party



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51431
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #241 on: January 23, 2020, 07:35:09 AM »
Trump Acts Like a Politician. That’s Not an Impeachable Offense.
Receiving a “political benefit” does not transform an otherwise legal action (like requesting an investigation) into an abuse of power.

By Josh Blackman
Mr. Blackman is a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston.

Jan. 23, 2020

861


Credit...T.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times
The way things look, President Trump will almost certainly not be removed from office. The precedents set by the articles of impeachment, however, will endure far longer. And regrettably, the House of Representatives has transformed presidential impeachment from a constitutional parachute — an emergency measure to save the Republic in free-fall — into a parliamentary vote of “no confidence.”

The House seeks to expel Mr. Trump because he acted “for his personal political benefit rather than for a legitimate policy purpose.” Mr. Trump’s lawyers responded, “elected officials almost always consider the effect that their conduct might have on the next election.” The president’s lawyers are right. And that behavior does not amount to an abuse of power.

Politicians pursue public policy, as they see it, coupled with a concern about their own political future. Otherwise legal conduct, even when plainly politically motivated — but without moving beyond a threshold of personal political gain — does not amount to an impeachable “abuse of power.” The House’s shortsighted standard will fail to knock out Mr. Trump but, if taken seriously, threatens to put virtually every elected official in peril. The voters, and not Congress, should decide whether to reward or punish this self-serving feature of our political order.

The first article of impeachment turns on President Trump’s request that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine announce an investigation of Hunter Biden’s role with the energy company Burisma. Mr. Trump wanted to learn about potential financial corruption concerning Hunter, realizing that such an investigation would, perhaps, yield greater scrutiny of Joe Biden. The House argues that this request to potentially harm Mr. Trump’s political rival was an “abuse of power.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
Mr. Trump’s lawyers respond that the call was “perfectly normal.” Yes, that phrase actually appears in the brief. Regrettably, parts of the brief are written in a far-too-political tone. But the president’s lawyers have raised an important threshold issue.

“In a representative democracy,” they write, “elected officials almost always consider the effect that their conduct might have on the next election.”

President Trump did not stand to receive any money or property from the Ukrainian president. (The House wisely chose not to charge Mr. Trump with bribery.) As a policy matter, I disagree with Mr. Trump’s decision to ask for an investigation of the Bidens. Even if warranted, it should have been avoided at all reasonable costs. The Republic would have been fine if we never learned more about Burisma. But receiving a “personal political benefit” does not transform an otherwise legal action — requesting an investigation — into impeachable conduct.

Mr. Trump is not the first president to consider his political future while executing the office. In 1864, during the height of the Civil War, President Lincoln encouraged Gen. William Sherman to allow soldiers in the field to return to Indiana to vote. What was Lincoln’s primary motivation? He wanted to make sure that the government of Indiana remained in the hands of Republican loyalists who would continue the war until victory. Lincoln’s request risked undercutting the military effort by depleting the ranks. Moreover, during this time, soldiers from the remaining states faced greater risks than did the returning Hoosiers.

Lincoln had dueling motives. Privately, he sought to secure a victory for his party. But the president, as a party leader and commander in chief, made a decision with life-or-death consequences. Lincoln’s personal interests should not impugn his public motive: win the war and secure the nation.

Editors’ Picks

A Grieving Young Tennis Star Finds Solace on the Court

10 Years Later, an Oscar Experiment That Actually Worked

Olivia Palermo Got a Lot Out of That Internship
Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENT

Continue reading the main story
Consider a more recent example. In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson sought to put Thurgood Marshall, the prominent civil rights advocate, on the Supreme Court. But there were no vacancies. Not a problem for Johnson, who nominated as attorney general Ramsey Clark, the son of Supreme Court Justice Tom C. Clark. Johnson knew that this move would, as Wil Haygood wrote in “Showdown: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court Nomination That Changed America,” raise questions “about a perceived conflict of interest because [Ramsey] Clark’s father sat on the high court.” Indeed, Johnson hoped that Justice Clark would retire to avoid having to recuse from cases in which Attorney General Clark was a party.

The stratagem worked. Justice Clark soon retired, and Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall to fill the vacancy. Here, Johnson engineered a move that would have created conflicts that would keep a sitting Supreme Court justice from deciding countless appeals, where the primary purpose was to create a vacancy on the court. (Imagine if President Trump selected Chief Justice Roberts’s wife as attorney general!) Ultimately, Johnson did not run for re-election in 1968, but appointing the first African-American justice could have improved his popularity, and perhaps his party’s electoral standing.

Politicians routinely promote their understanding of the general welfare, while, in the back of their minds, considering how those actions will affect their popularity. Often, the two concepts overlap: What’s good for the country is good for the official’s re-election. All politicians understand this dynamic, even — or perhaps especially — Mr. Trump. And there is nothing corrupt about acting based on such competing and overlapping concerns. Politicians can, and do, check the polls before casting a difficult vote. Yet the impeachment trial threatens to transform this well-understood aspect of politics into an impeachable offense.

What separates an unconstitutional “abuse of power” from the valorized actions of Lincoln and Johnson? Not the president’s motives. In each case, a president acted with an eye toward “personal political benefit.” Rather, Congress’s judgment about what is a “legitimate policy purpose” separates the acclaimed from the criticized. Preserving a unified nation during the Civil War? Check. Creating a vacancy so the first African-American can be appointed to the Supreme Court? Check. But asking a foreign leader to investigate potential corruption? Impeach.

An impeachable offense need not be criminal. But our Constitution does not allow Congress to take a vote of “no confidence” for a president who pursues legal policies that members of the opposition party deem insufficiently publicly spirited. Presidents who take such actions with an eye toward the ballot box should be judged by the voters at the ballot box.

MORE ON IMPEACHMENT

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12596
    • View Profile
Impeachment: Throwing mud at the wall, see what sticks
« Reply #242 on: January 23, 2020, 08:56:58 AM »
Bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors, when do they get to these?

I have a pet peeve about liberal attempted logic that I call "and another thing".  They make false, inconclusive or insignificant first, second, third points and then think it is icing on the cake to add more and more points to a point already proven before anyone can stop them to point out they still have not made a valid first point.  So it goes with the 24 hour presentation of why Trump should be removed from office.  Yawn.

They need ONE valid point from the House impeachment to remove him from office.  Why does this take 24 hours?

Here is the bribe. Not alleged, didn't happen.  Here is the Treason. Not alleged, didn't happen.  Here are the high crimes. Not even alleged, didn't happen.  So on they droll about whatever it is they are talking about when you tune in, in this case the size of the Old Testament. 

Last time I checked in there was a smear campaign against the never-Trumper, now fired Ambassador.  Why?  Trump doesn't need a reason to fire her or to re-assign her.    Somebody was out there saying something bad about someone in politics, OMG, right while they are doing it themselves.  We don't know who was saying it, what they said or whether or not it was true, but EVERYONE knows it isn't impeachable.  Getting her out of the way for whatever reason was easy and they did it.   Clinton fired 100 US Attorneys and no Democrat objected.  This ambassador hated Trump and had her own agenda.  Out she went.  Bitter?  Yes, so what?

When they ramble on and on about something insignificant with 100 Senators chained to their desk, isn't everyone correctly thinking they don't have a main point or they would be talking about that?

7 million people reportedly watched (some of it) in prime time - in a nation of 330 million where more than 130 million voted.  Close to zero watched in non-prime time.  The biggest audience of was on Fox, likely conservative, leaving the liberal audience not much larger than their usual evening of hate broadcasting.  The undecideds were not watching.  How could they, it's horrible.  115 million watched the Super Bowl, a 16-fold more significant event in their eyes.   

Frankly, days 1 and 2 of the impeachment trial could be called slow news days.  Nothing new came out.

When does Alexander Butterfield take the stand and tell us about the tapes? I know where I was July 13, 1973 watching live hearings when he revealed  we could just check the tapes. Tapes?  Gasp!

In this case the accusations aren't impeachable so proving them is meaningless.  Trump didn't hide what he did, perhaps with political motives, because his political interests were aligned with the official interests of the United States.  Root out corruption. If you don't like the way he does it, vote for someone else.  If 'the tapes' ever come out, it doesn't matter because Trump already - immediately  -released the transcript of the call that triggered this and it shows no wrong doing - unless you are a hateful leftist reading something into it that isn't there.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2020, 09:04:11 AM by DougMacG »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12596
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #243 on: January 24, 2020, 05:15:22 AM »
Unlike the House Managers, I believe the Defense is ready to present its case. 

This prosecution of Trump is a hodgepodge of tidbits compiled by haters who keep concluding the only reason he could have done any of this was to further  his own reelection.  Whether it was choosing his ambassador, setting his policies or deciding with whom to meet, it is all personal with no legitimate public purpose underlying his decisions.  It is not true and very easy to present another side to it. 

Getting reelected is part of his job, a necessary part of 'making America great again' as he sees it.  What he is not allowed to do is take official actions in his personal interest that are AGAINST the national interest.  If "inter-agency consensus" is opposed to Trump's decisions or methods, or if a liberal media outlet says that theory is "debunked", that does not make Trump's action wrong, a crime or an impeachable offense. 

The Biden arrangement and Barisma does not pass the smell test.  Looking into it is his job.  "Make up dirt", "on my opponent", "to aid in my reelection", these are quotes of Adam Schiff, not Donald Trump.  It was all made up; we have the transcript.  In the sentence that asks for favor, the favor is for "us" and he goes on to clarify the us is "our country".  If you don't like that, vote for someone else.  Don't remove the President you don't like from office and ban him from appearing on all future ballots in a free country.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2020, 05:28:44 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51431
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #244 on: January 24, 2020, 06:04:18 AM »
The ‘Corrupt Purposes’ Impeachment
Why the House logic is a danger to all future Presidents.
By The Editorial Board
Jan. 22, 2020 6:50 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
1,414
Opinion: The Democrat's Impeachment Case Could Set Dangerous Precedents
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

UP NEXT

Opinion: The Democrat's Impeachment Case Could Set Dangerous Precedents
Opinion: The Democrat's Impeachment Case Could Set Dangerous Precedents
On Jan. 22, 2020, Republican Senators responded to the impeachment case presented by House Democrats, and the possible repercussions it could have on the presidency. Image: Caroline Brehman/Zuma Press
As House managers make their impeachment case, many Americans will dismiss it all as a partisan effort that hasn’t persuaded the country and will die in the Senate. They have a point. But the precedents that Democrats are setting could live on, so forgive us if we explain how dangerous the House’s impeachment logic is to future Presidents and the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Especially pernicious is the new House “corrupt purposes” standard for removing a President from office. The House managers don’t assert that any specific action by President Trump was an abuse of power or a violation of law. They don’t deny he can delay aid to a foreign country or ask a foreign leader to investigate corruption. Presidents do that all the time. Instead they assert in their first impeachment article that Mr. Trump is guilty of “abuse of power” because he committed those acts for “corrupt purposes.”

Day One of the Impeachment Trial, and Joe Biden in Iowa


SUBSCRIBE
As an aside here, we should repeat that a President doesn’t have to break a specific law to commit an impeachable offense. Mr. Trump’s lawyers are wrong on this point. Presidents were accused of breaking specific laws in America’s three previous impeachments. But under the Constitution a President can commit “high crimes and misdemeanors” if he commits non-criminal acts that exceed his executive authority or if he refuses to execute the law.

But this means committing specific acts that are impeachable in and of themselves. Examples might be deploying U.S. troops against political opponents, or suspending habeas corpus without Congressional assent. (Lincoln received a Congressional pass in wartime.)

House Democrats are going much further and declaring that Mr. Trump’s acts are impeachable because he did them for “personal political benefit.” He isn’t accused of corruption per se. His Ukraine interventions are said to be corrupt because he intended them to help him win re-election this year. In other words, his actions were impeachable only because his motives were self-serving.

Think about this in the context of history and as a precedent. Every President has made foreign-policy decisions that he thinks may help his re-election. That’s what President Obama did in 2012 when he asked Dmitry Medvedev to tell Vladimir Putin to ease up on missile defense until after the election. Mitt Romney was criticizing Mr. Obama for being soft on Mr. Putin, and Mr. Obama wanted a political favor from the dictator to help him win re-election.

Was Mr. Obama’s motive also corrupt and thus impeachable? We can guess what Mr. Romney thought at the time, but he didn’t say Mr. Obama should be impeached. He tried to defeat him at the ballot box.

As 21 Republican state attorneys general explained in an important letter to the Senate on Wednesday, “It cannot be a legitimate basis to impeach a President for acting in a legal manner that may also be politically advantageous. Such a standard would be cause for the impeachment of virtually every President, past, present, and future.”

The AGs add that the “House’s corrupt motives theory is dangerous to democracy because it encourages impeachment whenever the President exercises his constitutional authority in a way that offends the opposing political party, which is predisposed to view his motives with skepticism and motivated by its own motives to regain that very office.”

Some sages dismiss this argument as slippery-slope alarmism that won’t come to pass. Their belief is that Mr. Trump is uniquely a threat to constitutional order and a future Congress wouldn’t apply the same logic to a more conventional President. Others want to make impeachment more routine as a check on presidential power.

This is wishful thinking. Once unleashed, the corrupt motives theory will become a temptation whenever a President is disliked and down in the polls. The mere threat of common impeachment will make Presidents much more beholden to Congress.

With this in mind, the Republican AGs advise the Senate to “explicitly reject” the House’s legal theory. This might take the form of a Senate resolution at the time of acquittal. The crucial point is to reject impeachment as a regular tool of partisan punishment, reserving it for genuine cases of presidential abuse.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10717
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #245 on: January 24, 2020, 06:17:49 AM »
Crafty
I am not clear the point of your above post
WH is wrong in their arguments for 'what ' reasons?

setting precedent for what?

the article is quite confusing

IS THIS THE POINT:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/impeachment-doesnt-require-a-crime/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=flex&utm_term=first
« Last Edit: January 24, 2020, 06:20:31 AM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51431
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #246 on: January 24, 2020, 06:51:19 AM »
"The AGs add that the “House’s corrupt motives theory is dangerous to democracy because it encourages impeachment whenever the President exercises his constitutional authority in a way that offends the opposing political party, which is predisposed to view his motives with skepticism and motivated by its own motives to regain that very office.”

, , ,

"Once unleashed, the corrupt motives theory will become a temptation whenever a President is disliked and down in the polls. The mere threat of common impeachment will make Presidents much more beholden to Congress.

"With this in mind, the Republican AGs advise the Senate to “explicitly reject” the House’s legal theory."

================

"IS THIS THE POINT:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/impeachment-doesnt-require-a-crime/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=flex&utm_term=first "?

Not my take at all.  As I think I have consistently articulated, my take is that the correct approach is OF COURSE HE WANTED BIDEN & SON INVESTIGATED.  (Not shouting, just emphasis)




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10717
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #247 on: January 24, 2020, 07:48:16 AM »
"With this in mind, the Republican AGs advise the Senate to “explicitly reject” the House’s legal theory."


Problem for me when the word "house " is used rather than "congress"
I get confused from White 'House' or Legislative 'House'

I thought the argument was the White 'House' defense is wrong........

It is just sickening listening the Democrats stand there and grandstand about right and wrong etc
when they lie all day long .

Like the Hawiian girl senator who says anyone who believes the "conspiracy " theory that the DEms were plotting impeachment from day one are crazy .......

   

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12596
    • View Profile
Re: Soft Coup 3.0: Impeachment
« Reply #248 on: January 24, 2020, 08:03:07 AM »
"OF COURSE HE WANTED BIDEN & SON INVESTIGATED."  (Not shouting, just emphasis)

Yes and it was okay for him to do so because his personal interest was aligned with our national interest. He knew he had staffers and deep staters on the call.  Releasing the transcript immediately upon questioning doesn't fit the accusation of criminal intent - or obstruction. 

The Biden-Ukraine thing OTOH doesn't pass the corruption smell test.  The merits of the specific act of firing the prosecutor can be debated, but the relationship of his immediate family receiving unexplainable amounts of money from a known corrupt source where then VP Joe Biden had direct responsibility is corrupt by design.

The investigation called for could lead to exoneration or no charges, but "make up dirt" is a direct projection of Schiff's party hiring Christopher Steele, prostitutes peeing on beds because someone black once slept there.  The Trump-Russia thing started with nothing.  The Biden-Ukraine is crooked on its face.

The allegation is that Trump just wanted an official announcement of an investigation.  House Managers in effect are admitting that the act of drawing attention to it would hurt Biden because - - - the relationship was crooked on its face.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 51431
    • View Profile